Research Authorization Processes: A Descriptive Comparison of Kenya and The United States of America

Abstract

Obtaining research authorization to ensure compliance with ethics regulations is critical for those seeking to conduct research.  Consequently, the primary objective of this study was to closely examine information regarding review boards and review processes that  a researcher would encounter during the process of preparing and submitting a proposal. Information posted about the review process  from two similar universities, one in the USA representing a localized review process and one in Kenya representing a centralized review  process was analyzed to address two key questions, “How well does each system support the successful approval of the researcher in  preparing a proposal,” and, “How might the strengths of each system be used to improve the other to better support increased research  for all?” Methodology focused on using key features related to five questions a new researcher might ask when preparing and submitting  a proposal: What structure governs the review process? What is the composition of the review board? What does the  research approval process involve? What information and documents are required for submitting a proposal? What evaluation criteria  are used to ensure fair and consistent review of research proposals? Side by side comparative charts of key features related to each of  these questions was used for the analysis. It was concluded that both systems supported the approval of ethical research and that both  institutions adhered to their respective government’s research ethics policies. The biggest differences in the two systems related to the  actual information provided by the institution to guide proposal development and submission, ethics training provided to researchers,  costs, and timelines. The most significant weakness for both institutions was lack of information regarding specific criteria used for  evaluation of proposals. Consequently, four recommendations were made. First, a supportive and positive relationship needs to exist  between the review board and researchers. Structural elements that create an adversarial rather than cooperative relationship need to  be identified and eliminated in order to provide collaborative support. This is particularly important for novice researchers. Second,  providing or developing ethics training for researchers has the potential of reducing frustration for those preparing a proposal and  increasing the quality of submissions to the review board. Third, while there is cost associated with research review, placing the burden of  this cost on individual researchers can be detrimental to promoting research. Governments and institutions need to consider the  value of research and find ways to reduce or eliminate personal costs to the researcher. Finally, it is imperative that review boards  provide current, accurate, and complete information regarding proposal preparation and develop rubrics that result in transparent  evaluation and useable feedback for the researcher.